News Is Global Warming a Swindle?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on reactions to the documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle," with participants expressing a range of views on climate change and the credibility of its scientific consensus. Some argue that the film presents discredited ideas and lacks input from qualified climatologists, while others believe it raises valid points about natural climate cycles and the influence of human activity. There is a notable emphasis on the importance of peer-reviewed research in the climate debate, with calls for skeptics to provide credible evidence against anthropogenic global warming. Participants also highlight the perceived divide between mainstream climate science and alternative viewpoints, suggesting that the debate is often framed in a way that resembles religious belief rather than scientific inquiry. Overall, the conversation reflects ongoing tensions in the climate change discourse, with varying levels of skepticism and acceptance of scientific authority.
  • #121
Evo said:
Emissions from cattle are well documented, but ignored by politicians. Why?
Strong lobby groups? Farmers/growers, grain processor, the beef, pork and poultry industries all have strong lobbies in Washington. It's easy for Washington politicians to blame oil companies since peoples' attention is on the price at the pump and the pain in the wallet.


Evo said:
"I'm sorry to be redundant about this, but I don't think people fully appreciate the logic. Meat eating is either the number one cause of GW or it is not. If it is the number one cause, then why are the GW people not talking about it?

Finally, there's a natural inclination to think of oil as the culprit, not just because Big Oil is so widely demonized, but because we've all been conditioned from childhood to think of smokestacks and tailpipes as pouring out evil, filthy pollution. Never mind that we emit carbons and that they're organic. Oil companies are "bad." Farmers are "good."

Thus, it is counterintuitive to see meat as the problem. Frankly, I don't think man's oil consumption or meat consumption emits enough carbon to change the climate. But I believe in being fair."

. . . we've all been conditioned from childhood to think of smokestacks and tailpipes as pouring out evil, filthy pollution.
They do! Stand behind an idling car and take a deep breath. Coal plants are notorious emitters of heavy metals, soot (if not with the latest clean technologies), and even 'radioactive' ash that is not entirely eliminated from the coal. But that is another issue.

Traveling to Houston or any major metropolitan area after living well outside the area, perferably upwind, one can 'taste', 'smell', and 'see' the difference. I traveled through the LA area and was astounded by the brown air. The guy I was with laughed about my reaction - but he didn't seem to realize that he had started to wheeze and develop sinus congestion, which he did not have when the trip began 2 hours earlier far to the south. Once we left LA, his wheezing and congestion disappeared.

We do need a rational discussion of issues such as GW, pollution, energy policy, etc. We do not need inuendo, hearsay and name-calling, nor coercion. I simply want the 'facts', and I will decide for myself. If something is a theory then let's identify it as such, and let's see the evidence, and reasonable alternative explanations - not someone's wild fantasy.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #122
Astronuc said:
Traveling to Houston or any major metropolitan area after living well outside the area, perferably upwind, one can 'taste', 'smell', and 'see' the difference. I traveled through the LA area and was astounded by the brown air. The guy I was with laughed about my reaction - but he didn't seem to realize that he had started to wheeze and develop sinus congestion, which he did not have when the trip began 2 hours earlier far to the south. Once we left LA, his wheezing and congestion disappeared.

We do need a rational discussion of issues such as GW, pollution, energy policy, etc. We do not need inuendo, hearsay and name-calling, nor coercion. I simply want the 'facts', and I will decide for myself. If something is a theory then let's identify it as such, and let's see the evidence, and reasonable alternative explanations - not someone's wild fantasy.

There is the core of the matter. The confusion between pollution and use of fossil fuel. We need most definitely stop that pollution. Most certainly. But then we have to fight pollution and that is not the same as fighting global warming. That would be rearranging the deck seats of the Titanic.

If fighting pollutions means reducing CO2 due to other energy sources, that's fine, but it should not be the purpose. The purpose should be clean air, irrelevant if it contains 280, 380, 560 ppmv CO2. But if you start working with the wrong perception of reality, you end up making the wrong decisions.
 
  • #123
Astronuc said:
Strong lobby groups? Farmers/growers, grain processor, the beef, pork and poultry industries all have strong lobbies in Washington. It's easy for Washington politicians to blame oil companies since peoples' attention is on the price at the pump and the pain in the wallet.
Yep.

They do! Stand behind an idling car and take a deep breath.
The worst car polution I have ever encountered was in Bangkok. Driving around in a tuk-tuk, I really thought I was going to be asphyxiated before I got to my destination.

We do need a rational discussion of issues such as GW, pollution, energy policy, etc. We do not need inuendo, hearsay and name-calling, nor coercion. I simply want the 'facts', and I will decide for myself. If something is a theory then let's identify it as such, and let's see the evidence, and reasonable alternative explanations - not someone's wild fantasy.
Wouldn't that be nice?
 
  • #125
The point wasn't whether Kyoto was good. I'm not qualified to make that judgement. I was first told that everybody was ignoring met and nit. I said the IPCC report mentions them as a significant problem. I was then told that nobody was proposing a control of met and nit, so I mentioned Kyoto. You then hollered that I hadn't posted an explicit link to something that comes up in a 2 second google search, so I did. As for my attitude, I'm simply responding in kind.
 
  • #126
Evo said:
Here's the actual report. I haven't had time to do more that scan through it to understand the adjustments made, I'm assuming they are fair. I'd have to see if I can find other papers that discuss this report. There is a difference between skewing data, data mining and trying to find a fair means at data representation to give a more realistic view. Adjusting data is not always bad if it is done consistently and in the right way, for the right reasons.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/wmo/ccl/rural-urban.pdf

To members, please make sure that a report is publicly available before you post nothing but an abstract requiring a subscription.
Thanks for the link Evo. I've read it and found it's even more biased than I anticipated.

The authors set out to try and eliminate the difference in the temperature records between urban and rural areas in an attempt to eliminate the heat island effect which is one of the weak links in the AGW theory.

Presumably they couldn't think of ways to justify increasing the historical temp recordings from the rural stations so they focused on trying to reduce the temperatures in the urban records instead under the guise of correcting for inhomogeneities in the data set.

After making (some fairly arbitrary in some cases) adjustments for 5 areas - elevation, latitude, time of observation, instrumentation, and nonstandard siting all of which coincidentaly helped reduce the urban temperature records they came to the not unsurprising conclusion that there is no heat island effect of any note :rolleyes:

In cities where even fudging the figures didn't supply the answer they wanted they put it down to micro-environment anomolies.

A few questions spring to mind.

As they were not looking for trend information why bother using historical data. Why not simply confirm/set up accurate measuring stations and collect fresh information untainted by inhomogeneities? Then there would be no need for any adjustments.

Why does it appear that no effort was made to determine if there were unique rural conditions which would exagerate their temperatures. Only urban anomalies were looked for.

What effect would lowering all of the urban temp records have on the calculations of overall global temperatures? Though presumably in case this embarrasses the AGW club they have left themselves an escape route by admitting the adjustments made may introduce new errors.

Can anybody say confirmation bias?? :biggrin:

It seems the purpose of this project was simply to muddy the waters by claiming either a) there is no temperature difference between rural and urban areas or b) the data is too unreliable to use so as to weaken the 'heat island effect' argument against AGW.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #127
StuMyers said:
The point wasn't whether Kyoto was good. I'm not qualified to make that judgement. I was first told that everybody was ignoring met and nit. I said the IPCC report mentions them as a significant problem. I was then told that nobody was proposing a control of met and nit, so I mentioned Kyoto. You then hollered that I hadn't posted an explicit link to something that comes up in a 2 second google search, so I did. As for my attitude, I'm simply responding in kind.
Stu the point was politicians are ignoring it. As has been pointed out all the talk from politicians is about carbon taxes and zilch about the rest.

As a rough and ready comparison if you google on "carbon tax" there are 750,000 hits compared to 1,300 for "methane tax" and 643 for "nitrogen tax"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #128
Art said:
It seems the purpose of this project was simply to muddy the waters by claiming either a) there is no temperature difference between rural and urban areas or b) the data is too unreliable to use so as to weaken the 'heat island effect' argument against AGW.
There is bias on both sides, and lots of finger-pointing against one's scapegoat du jour. As Andre will gladly acknowledge if you ask him, Central Maine has shown a very steady increase in average winter temperatures since the 1950's. I used to ice-skate on ponds, bogs, etc by Thanksgiving day when I was a kid, and now you're lucky if you can find safe ice to skate on by January 1. Ski resorts are being sold off and the costs of trying to run them is going through the roof because the cost of pipes, water, electricity, and labor to run snow guns on cold nights is horrendous. Did I mention that man-made snow is usually crap for skiing and attendance is way down??

Now, there has been no concurrent increase in average summer temperatures, but that could be in part due to the haze that we experience all summer long, with the accompanying EPA ozone warnings, due to the coal-fired power plants in the midwest. Their permitting processes relied on local testing of contaminants and particulates, so the operators of these plants just built taller stacks to shoot the contaminants higher into the atmosphere so that the local monitoring stations couldn't detect them. I worked as environmental chemist for a few years before switching to process chemistry and it was my job to ensure environmental compliance of the mill's stack effluent (chemical recovery boiler, power boilers and lime kiln) so I am well aware of these loopholes. As a result of this short-sighted lack of oversight and reasonable regulation, Maine suffers a level of air pollutants that is far out of proportion to our population. It's pure economics. A tall smokestack (just a simple tube) is easier to build and far cheaper to maintain than real pollution-control technology (scrubbers, etc), so the power company lobbies buy off our idiots in Congress to allow them to continue to pass the pollution on to another region. What's worse, if a particular power plant is a heavy polluter, the owner can barter "pollution credits" with another plant and continue to pollute, on the badly misguided notion that pollution "averages out". As long as people are distracted by false claims and red herrings, our environment will continue to suffer.
 
  • #129
Turbo I fully agree with you and probably everybody else here that pollution needs to be tackled urgently, I just don't think a policy of 'the end justifies the means', which seems to be the attitude of many environmentalists, is the right way to address it, especially if the 'end' is actually the wrong goal.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #130
Art said:
...
As they were not looking for trend information why bother using historical data. Why not simply confirm/set up accurate measuring stations and collect fresh information untainted by inhomogeneities? Then there would be no need for any adjustments.
...
It seems the purpose of this project was simply to muddy the waters by claiming either a) there is no temperature difference between rural and urban areas or b) the data is too unreliable to use so as to weaken the 'heat island effect' argument against AGW.

I think you completely missed the purpose and analysis of the article. The point is to re-analyze the data more rigorously. The conclusion is that urban areas are NOT homogenously warmer than rural, and that previous data analysis failed to take that into account in a rigorous fashion. Figure 6 should show that quite clearly.

The article passed peer-review. I doubt a non-expert will be able to find obvious rational faults.

Stu the point was politicians are ignoring it.

Then why do I, who admittedly knows nothing, know about it? Why does it not count as mentioning when someone recalls Kyoto?
 
  • #131
StuMyers said:
I think you completely missed the purpose and analysis of the article. The point is to re-analyze the data more rigorously. The conclusion is that urban areas are NOT homogenously warmer than rural, and that previous data analysis failed to take that into account in a rigorous fashion. Figure 6 should show that quite clearly.

The article passed peer-review. I doubt a non-expert will be able to find obvious rational faults.
I know what they did my question is as they actually state in their paper they are not seeking to perform a trend analysis but simply to accurately compare rural and urban temperatures why bother adjusting old data when you will obtain far more accurate results with new data which doesn't need any adjustments? Even if they were primarily concerned about fixing the historical record I'm surprised they haven't added new data if only to confirm and reinforce their conclusions.



StuMyers said:
Then why do I, who admittedly knows nothing, know about it? Why does it not count as mentioning when someone recalls Kyoto?
As I already posted
As a rough and ready comparison if you google on "carbon tax" there are 750,000 hits compared to 1,300 for "methane tax" and 643 for "nitrogen tax"
I think that speaks for itself.

Most people get their news and thus their priorities from tabloid papers and other mass media outlets. Very, very few read international treaties.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #132
Evo said:
The worst car polution I have ever encountered was in Bangkok. Driving around in a tuk-tuk, I really thought I was going to be asphyxiated before I got to my destination.
I had a similar experience in Monterrey, Mexico about 35 years ago. The black and brown smoke that was spewed out of buses and trucks was unbelieveable. I couldn't believe I was on the same planet.
 
  • #133
Astronuc said:
I had a similar experience in Monterrey, Mexico about 35 years ago. The black and brown smoke that was spewed out of buses and trucks was unbelieveable. I couldn't believe I was on the same planet.
I found LA to be the worst I've seen. I had a permanent sore throat whilst there and when you get up to the rim of the valley and look down all you could see was a brown fog.
 
  • #134
Art said:
I know what they did my question is as they actually state in their paper they are not seeking to perform a trend analysis but simply to accurately compare rural and urban temperatures why bother adjusting old data when you will obtain far more accurate results with new data which doesn't need any adjustments? Even if they were primarily concerned about fixing the historical record I'm surprised they haven't added new data if only to confirm and reinforce their conclusions.

They wanted to show that the past analysis was not sufficently rigorous, and that UHI's are more complicated, with lots of temperature gradients. That was the point. Can you find any reviewed articles claiming that thermometers in UHI's account for much of the recorded warming?

I think that (google search) speaks for itself.

You wanted to claim that politicians and scientists were ignoring met and nit. A google search is irrelevant. A google search of newspaper headlines is irrelevant. An examination of the data, and a look inside the treaty are relevant.
 
  • #135
StuMyers said:
They wanted to show that the past analysis was not sufficently rigorous, and that UHI's are more complicated, with lots of temperature gradients. That was the point. Can you find any reviewed articles claiming that thermometers in UHI's account for much of the recorded warming?.
Isn't that a double edged sword? If urban historical records are wrong through timing, instrument, elevation and whatever other discrepancies the same applies to all historical temp records urban, rural and sea which means there is no reliable baseline to work to and so no reliable evidence of GW. :approve:

You didn't actually address the questions I raised in relation to the report. Of course you don't have to but I'd be interested in your thoughts on the subject.


StuMyers said:
You wanted to claim that politicians and scientists were ignoring met and nit. A google search is irrelevant. A google search of newspaper headlines is irrelevant. An examination of the data, and a look inside the treaty are relevant.
On this we'll just have to agree to disagree. :smile:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #136
a tempest in a teapot, but swirling, whirling like a kickboxer--thats how I think of hurricanes. Smetimes borderline between a swell, tropical storm, and full fledged fury, very hard to predict except in the sense a few kilowatts of energy can be amplified to hell's fury on one occasion, and ignored on the others. There is no argument that such cyclones feed on the heat released by the ocean. Let's see, looking for the last link re an arctic hurricane.

None. that the proposition that man has no influence on the planet or nature: are you kidding?

We can measure some data and infer from others, different conclusions.

I would submit that the liveability of a planet is somehow related to the number of species present and alive. There has been an alarming reduction in such creatures. Are we to blame? Not me!
 
  • #137
denverdoc said:
I would submit that the liveability of a planet is somehow related to the number of species present and alive. There has been an alarming reduction in such creatures. Are we to blame? Not me!

On one episode of Penn & Teller Bullsh!t, Patrick Moore (former president of Greenpeace) said that species reduction claims are nothing more than estimates and there's basically no evidence of dwindling biodiversity on this planet. The episode was about the ignorant hysteria behind the environmentalist movement.

It's possible that he too is just making stuff up, but the scientific method doesn't require you to prove innocence. If you make a claim that diversity is going down, you need to back it up with evidence. At least give a URL or something.
 
Last edited:
  • #138
ShawnD said:
On one episode of Penn & Teller Bullsh!t, Patrick Moore (former president of Greenpeace) said that species reduction claims are nothing more than estimates and there's basically no evidence of dwindling biodiversity on this planet. The episode was about the ignorant hysteria behind the environmentalist movement.


tell that to the frogs. If it weren't a matter of concern and maybe it isn't for most, why even have endangered species lists.? This is a see no evil hear no evil argumentnot worth the time of day.
 
  • #139
Art said:
Presumably they couldn't think of ways to justify increasing the historical temp recordings from the rural stations so they focused on trying to reduce the temperatures in the urban records instead under the guise of correcting for inhomogeneities in the data set.
Why do you do this? Everyone here that has read this paper will now must realize that you have still either (i) not read it, or (ii) just not understood it.

As they were not looking for trend information why bother using historical data. Why not simply confirm/set up accurate measuring stations and collect fresh information untainted by inhomogeneities? Then there would be no need for any adjustments.
Are you actually being serious here? You want the author, who has applied a more careful analysis to existing data, to drop all that and instead (i) somehow find a boatload of money, (ii) go about building a statistically relevant number of temperature monitoring stations, (iii) sit about waiting for a statistically relevant number of years for the new data to come in from these stations and then (iv) publish the new data?

Why does it appear that no effort was made to determine if there were unique rural conditions which would exagerate their temperatures. Only urban anomalies were looked for.
What on Earth are you talking about? When did elevation, latitude, time of observation or type of instrument become unique characteristics of urban locations? The adjustments were applied to data from all stations, not just the data from urban stations. The medial rural temperature actually ended up being adjusted by a magnitude greater than the medial urban temperature.

Can anybody say confirmation bias?? :biggrin:
This is ironic!
 
Last edited:
  • #140
denverdoc said:
tell that to the frogs. If it weren't a matter of concern and maybe it isn't for most, why even have endangered species lists.? This is a see no evil hear no evil argumentnot worth the time of day.

P&T had an episode about the Endangered Species act as well, but that's a different matter entirely. From what I can find on the internet, USA has http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/SpeciesReport.do?dsciname=0&dcomname=1&dgroup=2&dstatus=3&dcurrdist=4&sgroup=0&ssciname=1&scomname=2&searchkey=comname&searchkey=sciname&header=TESS%20Search%20Results&searchstring=frog new species of frog. Do these new species count in our favour against the ones that are becoming endangered?

Frog numbers on the whole are going down, but the group "frog" isn't leaving any time soon. We probably are responsible for their overall numbers going down, but humans are rarely the sole cause of species extinction.
edit: By "rarely" I mean in a relative sense. If we make 100 species go extinct in one particular year, that sounds like a lot, but it's not much if that year had an overall loss of 1 million species. I'm pulling the numbers 100 and 1 million out of my ass, but you can see what I'm getting at.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #141
Art said:
Turbo I fully agree with you and probably everybody else here that pollution needs to be tackled urgently, I just don't think a policy of 'the end justifies the means', which seems to be the attitude of many environmentalists, is the right way to address it, especially if the 'end' is actually the wrong goal.
That is exactly how I feel. We need to use some common sense and stop the over reaction. Until people are capable of understanding historical climate changes and realistically look at the data, we will most likely cause more damage than good.
 
  • #142
I've come to add unrecorded data. This is very raw data, I'm not analyzing it or making conclusions, but here goes:

I live in Alaska. Commercial fishing, I've witnessed 3 used-oil bonfires (probably about 10 5-gallon buckets. On land, I've witnessed probably 2 tire-burnings (piles were about five foot radius at bottom of pile) use SOC to find heighth. There's this place in my hometown that the high-schoolers always light whatever gets left out there on fire. Plastic tables, cars, and other random city installments don't ever last longer than a month.

Now, I only fished commercially for three or fours years.

Now imagine all the people doing this all over the world for the last ~70 years. Is that a significant amount of CO2 contribution? I don't know.
 
  • #143
StuMyers said:
(snip)The fact is, unless you go and earn a PhD in a quantitative science, gain employment as a climate scientist, and publish original research in a PR journal, you're not qualified to have your own opinion on it.

Bit extreme --- to paraphrase: "Unless you are trained in one of the quantitative sciences (understand methods of measurement and statistics, and assorted fundamental principles, conservation, Newton, thermo, etc.), no Ph. D. required, no employment in a specialty required, no publication list required, you are not qualified to pass judgment on the quality of the science being presented.

If what is presented as "science" fails to conform to sound measurement practices, statistical principles, and fundamental physics, it's fair game.
 
  • #144
BillJx said:
I think this should be painfully obvious - - not that you can't have your own opinion, just that it isn't credible. Intelligent people have opinions on all sorts of fascinating subjects outside their formal training. Those opinions are good for an entertaining discussion at the local pub, and that's about all.
And yet the greatest medical advance of all time The Theory of Germs wasn't discovered by a physician but by a chemist - Louis Pasteur.

It's fortunate he didn't know you're not supposed to dabble outside your speciality :smile:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #145
Bystander said:
Bit extreme --- to paraphrase: "Unless you are trained in one of the quantitative sciences (understand methods of measurement and statistics, and assorted fundamental principles, conservation, Newton, thermo, etc.), no Ph. D. required, no employment in a specialty required, no publication list required, you are not qualified to pass judgment on the quality of the science being presented.

If what is presented as "science" fails to conform to sound measurement practices, statistical principles, and fundamental physics, it's fair game.

I think you might be underestimating the depth of a modern quantitative science. You're basically describing the level of a lower-division undergraduate. Except on very rare occaisions, graduate-level errors are culled out of papers long before even the review process begins. Just for fun, why not head over to arxiv, and pull a few modern papers at random. See if you think an undergraduate has any REAL hope of finding error, or making some kind of meaningful contribution.

Here are a few, which my mouse just clicked at random...

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/nucl-th/pdf/0703/0703084.pdf

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/math/pdf/0703/0703631.pdf

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0703/0703218.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #146
Evo said:
Yep.

The worst car polution I have ever encountered was in Bangkok. Driving around in a tuk-tuk, I really thought I was going to be asphyxiated before I got to my destination.
Hahaha. India is worse! Much worse. But in Guam I saw my cleanest air, and most polluted has the cleanest best air I've seen :smile: Except when we get those weird floating evil clouds of Chinese pollution, then you really notice. We also had a volcano eruption a few hundred miles south, then you REALLY notice. You could smell the sulfur and taste the ash in your mouth, visibility was greatly reduced and the air had kind of a slightly-brownish fog to it for a few days.
 
Last edited:
  • #147
On one episode of Penn & Teller Bullsh!t, Patrick Moore (former president of Greenpeace) said that species reduction claims are nothing more than estimates and there's basically no evidence of dwindling biodiversity on this planet. The episode was about the ignorant hysteria behind the environmentalist movement.

It's possible that he too is just making stuff up, but the scientific method doesn't require you to prove innocence. If you make a claim that diversity is going down, you need to back it up with evidence. At least give a URL or something.
It seems to me species are constantly dying, and a biodiversity crisis seems like an abstract, future, false, crisis. I really don't know anything about it, but it just looks like that.
 
  • #148
StuMyers said:
I think you might be underestimating the depth of a modern quantitative science.
I think what you are failing to consider is that having a PHD does not mean that you cannot be DEAD WRONG or even crazy. Passing peer review does not make something correct. Having a consensus among a group of scientists does not make something correct.

The amount of "warming" that pollution by humans has added to the "natural" warming has not been proven to be causing any major climate changes, it is only a guess at this point.

Are you familiar with Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation?

What is the AMO?

The AMO is an ongoing series of long-duration changes in the sea surface temperature of the North Atlantic Ocean, with cool and warm phases that may last for 20-40 years at a time and a difference of about 1°F between extremes. These changes are natural and have been occurring for at least the last 1,000 years.

"Is the AMO a natural phenomenon, or is it related to global warming?

Instruments have observed AMO cycles only for the last 150 years, not long enough to conclusively answer this question. However, studies of paleoclimate proxies, such as tree rings and ice cores, have shown that oscillations similar to those observed instrumentally have been occurring for at least the last millennium. This is clearly longer than modern man has been affecting climate, so the AMO is probably a natural climate oscillation. In the 20th century, the climate swings of the AMO have alternately camouflaged and exaggerated the effects of global warming, and made attribution of global warming more difficult to ascertain."

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/amo_faq.php

And why Knee jerk reactions to try to "fix" problems can make things worse. https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1078780&postcount=23
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #149
AMO neither proves nor disproves global warming. For that matter it is totally unrelated since it deals with the Atlantic Ocean only. It merely states that a one degree temperature variation of the the Atlantic ocean has been occurring for approximately one thousand years.
 
  • #150
Evo said:
I think what you are failing to consider is that having a PHD does not mean that you cannot be DEAD WRONG or even crazy. Passing peer review does not make something correct. Having a consensus among a group of scientists does not make something correct.

The amount of "warming" that pollution by humans has added to the "natural" warming has not been proven to be causing any major climate changes, it is only a guess at this point.

Are you familiar with (something to do with oceans)

In my experience, it's several orders of magnitude more likely that it's the crackpots who are wrong.
 

Similar threads

Global Warming: Unraveling the Confusion
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K